https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770679 The ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment beyond 4 years was invalid due to non-compliance with section 151(2) requirements. The AO obtained sanction from Pr. CIT instead of the mandatorily required Joint Commissioner for cases not originally selected under section 143(3). Following the Bombay HC precedent in Ghanshyam Khabrani, the tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order legally unsustainable as mandatory procedural requirements were not met. The assessee's appeal was allowed, invalidating the reopening notice. en-us Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 May 2025 07:32:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770679 The ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment beyond 4 years was invalid due to non-compliance with section 151(2) requirements. The AO obtained sanction from Pr. CIT instead of the mandatorily required Joint Commissioner for cases not originally selected under section 143(3). Following the Bombay HC precedent in Ghanshyam Khabrani, the tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order legally unsustainable as mandatory procedural requirements were not met. The assessee's appeal was allowed, invalidating the reopening notice. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770679